Parker's valedictory

Kiwiblog

16-05-2025

Quite a few interesting things said by David Parker in his valedictory speech:
Dame Anne Salmond describes the Treaty as an exchange of gifts—tuku—between the Queen for her subjects and a rangatira on behalf of hapū. I agree with Dame Anne that Te Tiriti is not a partnership between races. She criticises both the phrase and that legal construct from the decision of Lord Cooke in the 1987 land case. I don't think those comments from Cooke are a necessary part of the ratio decidendi of that case, and it would be helpful for the senior courts to say so if they are of that view.
I agree it would be very useful for the Supreme Court to say exactly that. Cooke actually said that it was akin to a partnership, and as noted that was not a binding view.
Kelvin Davis says that article 1 plus article 2 equals article 3. Treaty rights are substantial, but there is no Treaty right to a parallel system of Government that would breach article 1.
Does Willie agree? The Greens and TPM certainly don't.
Now, there's a debate about the relative merits of a capital income tax or realisation-based capital gains tax (CGT), which I've also advocated for, and either solution is good. And, yes, if I had my way, we would have both with appropriate credit for one against other. Capital income would not be double-taxed. That would allow everyone to get the first $20,000 income tax free, $10K immediately, and the next $10K phased in as CGT revenue grew. I'd fix interest deductibility again, and I'd let everyone inherit $1 million tax-free, be it from trusts or deceased estates.
Good God, he wanted to implement a Capital gains Tax, a wealth tax and also a death tax!
His death tax would kick in at around the level of the median house price in New Zealand, so basically if you end up owning your own home and die, Parker would tax you!
Capital flight is exaggerated. The land, the buildings, the cows, the fish, and the trees stay; even pigs can't fly. This means the means of production remain.
This is a view that might have been true in 1900 or 1950 but definitely not in 2025. The means of production are no longer land and buildings. Our most successful global company Xero is not dependent on NZ land and buildings. Same goes for Zuru.
We are all hostages to MMP. Why else would so much political capital be frittered away on identity politics while others fan culture wars and size society polarisers? To be clear, MMP drives these behaviours in main parties too. Under first past the post, New Zealand became amongst the best country in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Dr Hooten is right and MMP gets worse over time. It's the people's system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don't get fixed, we should allow the people to, again, make their choice. I'd vote STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat.
I agree that STV would be a far better system than MMP. It is still roughly proportional, but it means voters, not party lists, would determine who gets to be an MP – and every MP would have to keep their electorate happy to be re-elected.
And if we become a Republic—not high on my list—please avoid giving a president executive powers.
Absolutely. They should have the same powers as the Governor-General.